Hinman v. State
| Citation | 179 Miss. 503,176 So. 264 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1937 |
| Docket Number | 32827 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | HINMAN v. STATE |
FALSE PRETENSES.
In prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses evidence concerning deposit of a check that did not belong to accused and subsequent withdrawal showed an intent to defraud, supporting conviction.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Attala county HON. JOHN F. ALLEN Judge.
H. P. Hinman was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
T. J. Barnett, of Carthage, for appellant.
In this case the record is bare as showing that any crime has been committed. No one testified that the check belonged to any one except the Carthage Creamery Co. of Carthage, Mississippi. It is true that the attorney for the bank informed appellant that the check was not his property, and the appellant informed him that if it was not his property, then in that instance he would pay the bank. But the record does not show who the check belonged to. The only right the bank has is a civil action against the appellant if the check was not his property.
Appellant, it seems to me, has acted in a fair and open manner throughout this whole transaction. If it later developed that the check was not the property of the Carthage Creamery Co. of Carthage, Mississippi, but that the appellant thought it was in good faith then he is not guilty. It is not sufficient to sustain an indictment for obtaining money under false pretenses to prove that representation was false as a matter of fact; but the statement must be known to be false by the party making it, or he must state the facts in such a way as to carry assurance to the party he is dealing with that the representation of his (the maker) knowledge.
King v. State, 86 So. 874; Pittman v. State, 58 So. 532.
W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
It is clear from the authorities generally that one does not necessarily have to make any oral false representation to render himself liable for obtaining money under false pretenses.
Wharton's Cr. Law (12 Ed.), Section 1412, page 1706; Comm. v. Harper, 195 Ky. 843, 243 S.W. 1053; Comm. v. Dougherty, 84 Pa.Super. Co., 319; Stecher v. St., 168 Wis. 183, 169 N.W. 287.
By presenting the check to the bank, Hinman impliedly represented to the bank that he was lawfully in possession of the check and that it belonged to him and that he had the right to the proceeds of it. Under the decisions above referred to and applying ordinary business common sense to the transaction, his conduct and act in depositing the check under the circumstances reflected by this record amounted to a false pretense,--namely, that he falsely and fraudulently represented himself to be the owner of the check and entitled to its proceeds.
Martins v. State, 98 P. 709, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.), 645.
Heretofore this court has consistently held that in passing upon the propriety of a directed verdict, it will consider every fact and inference most favorably to the state.
Redwine v. State, 149 Miss. 741, 115 So. 889; Pruitt v. State, 163 Miss. 235, 140 So. 683; Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16, 143 So. 479.
When this rule is applied to the facts of this case we have a situation where Hinman, well knowing that the check did not belong to him, nevertheless by his conduct falsely pretended to the bank that he was the owner of the check and obtained the cash on it from such bank-- his conduct having the effect of defrauding the bank out of $ 304.
Applying the rule of law above referred to to the facts of this case, we submit that it was proper for the trial court to allow this case to go to the jury and the judgment entered on the jury's verdict should be upheld by this court.
McGowen, J., McGehee, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.
Appellant having been convicted in the lower court of obtaining money under false pretenses and sentenced to serve a term of one year in the state penitentiary prosecutes an appeal here.
The facts necessary to state are substantially as follows: Some time prior to April 1, 1936, Hinman had operated a business known as the Carthage Creamery Company at Carthage, Miss but the business had been financially unsuccessful and had terminated. About April 1st he received a check drawn by the David Spruks Company of Scranton, Pa., on the Third National Bank of that city, dated March 30, 1936, for $ 304. On April 2d, he mailed this check, indorsed Carthage Creamery Company,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...word, symbol, or token calculated and intended to deceive. It may be made either expressly or by implication.' See also Hinman v. State, 179 Miss. 503, 176 So. 264; Heard v. State, 177 Miss. 661, 171 So. 775; 35 C.J.S. False Pretenses Secs. 18-20, pp. Under the common law, proof of criminal......
-
Ex parte Thaggard
...light on Thaggard's thoughts as he handed Mrs. Owen the check after she had told him he had $43,498.38 in the bank. Under Hinman v. State, 179 Miss. 503, 176 So. 264, the state of mind at the moment of uttering the token claimed to be false is We quote from Commonwealth v. Drew (1837), 19 P......
-
Fuller v. State, 39175
...but the implication of such authority clearly arises from the acts and conduct of the defendants. In the case of Hinman v. State, 179 Miss. 503, 176 So. 264, the defendant was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses. He had operated a business known as the Carthage Creamery Compa......